How will the disaster from the Fukushima nuclear power station influence global warming and climate change?

If we switch from nuclear to coal, many more people will die and the climate will be adversely affected.

Radiation is a natural phenomenon and inescapable. Most of Europe is naturally more radioactive than the countryside around Fukushima, and there is a village in Iran about 20x worse.

Hydroelectric power is one of the most dangerous sources of energy, though the statistics are skewed by a single disaster taking out 2 dams in China and killing 250,000 people

Coal power kills thousands in production, and hundreds of thousands indirectly through pollution.

Nuclear power has killed a few dozen people, total, with a few thousand cancers and possible early deaths.

Geothermal power is considered to have triggered an earthquake in Switzerland.

Old-style oil lamps and candles caused fires which burned down entire towns and doubtless killed a good many people.

If we totally switched from everything to wind power, that might affect climate by pulling energy from the weather systems. Several people have died during turbine erection.

Nothing is safe. Yes, we need better safer energy sources, but right now nuclear fission is one of the less bad ones.

No one died in the Fukushima incident. The risk of nuclear power to human health is almost nonexistent.

If we do not build nuclear power plants, we will build coal fired power plants. For every nuclear power plant which not built because of wind power, there is a coal plant which would not be operating if we had used that wind power instead of coal rather than instead of nuclear.

Regarding the cost, like wind power, nuclear power has high up front costs, but the operating costs of nuclear power plants are modest.

edit

"* Cesium 137 accumulates in fatty tissues, liver, spleen and muscles

"* Iodide-131 accumulates in Thyroid, breast and ovaries

"* Strontium-90 concentrates in your bones and liver

"* Barium-140 causes bone tumors up to 30 years later

"* Tellurium-132 causes cell mutations, repeatedly via replication

"* Yttrium-0 damage to liver and respiration

"* Putonium-244 concentrates in your liver

"* Uranium 235 accumulates in your bones and liver"

and dihydrogen oxide causes death by drowning. Your attempts to use fear to get us to fill the atmosphere with the smoke from coal plants totally disregards the simple fact that harmful substances need to be at a certain dose before they could harm you. Anyone who understands anything about chemistry or biology knows that all substances are harmful in excess quantity, even essential substances such as vitamins and minerals. People who fail to recognize that many substances which are essential are responsible for conspiracy theories about fluoride in water, global warming denialism and fear of nuclear power.

It will increase global warming because we'll build more coal plants. For instance, land-locked Germany has suddenly gained a fear of being hit by tsunamis and will shut down plants; already their pollution level has gone up.

Tsjernobyl killed 62 peoplehttp://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_c...

Three-Mile Island killed nobody and is still operating.

Fukishima killed nobody and the situation has improved significantly:

http://www.google.com/m/url?client=safari&ei=oMWoT...

Are you afraid your nuke plant will be hit by a tsunami? If you live outside of the Fukishima plant, you don't have to worry because your generators are behind submarine doors and the switchgears aren't in the basement. Not to mention that many modern designs are passively safe, meaning they don't require mechanical intervention to stay cool.

You, of course, can oppose nuclear power if you don't care about the environment.

EDIT@ OP:

You're horribly exaggerating the effects of radiation. At Fukishima, radiation levels are at 2.0 microsieverts/hour (accurate as of April 15). Everywhere else it's less than 0.1 microSv. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate0...

According to the EPA, you are exposed to 2.0 millisieverts of natural radon in your house annually

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/402-k-07-006.pdf

1 mSv=1,000 microSv. This means that if you're in Fukishima, you can be exposed to gamma radiation for 1,000 hours (42 days) before exposure reaches that of your house, and about 20,000 hours (833 days, over 2 years) in the rest of Japan. And this is only considering the amount of radon in your house, and doesn't consider other sources like cosmic radiation or radon outside the house. You'd better destroy your house and where lead armour all day, although that still won't completely protect you. In fact, the only way to be truly safe from radiation is to kill yourself, which is somewhat counter-productive.

EDIT@ OP:

So. Bananas are radioactive, are you going to stop eating them? The heat you get from the sun everyday is radiation, are you going to stay indoors? X-rays, CT scans and other medical imaging are HIGHLY radioactive, are you going to stop getting those? Let’s take two of the worst radiation leaks from a nuclear plant and tell you exactly how they impacted the environment. TMI released 17 Curies of radiation into the river. In a confined space, that’s a lot. In the river, it wasn’t even detectable. One thing that can’t be denied is if the radiation levels are low enough to be undetectable, they are not harmful, period (ie in a banana). Second, the current leaks of tritium to the ground by some plants. The regulatory limit for leaking tritium is 20,000 pCi/L of tritium on water. The plants who have found leaks are much higher than that and need to fix it. But let’s take the worst of these leaks which is 2,200,000 pCi/L of tritium. While this is over 100x the allowed limit, even if it was allowed to get into the drinking water, the dose you would get from drinking it for a whole year is 25 mRem. Do you know how small that is? You get almost 400 mRem a year by just being alive from the sun, space, natural radiation etc and an X-ray is around 70 mRem. So yes, nuclear plants may release radiation, but it doesn’t matter. 

And what do you propose we do instead? Coal plants release much more radiation much more consistently than nuclear plants, in addition to toxins that last forever. Solar panel production also releases toxins, and often end up in landfills where the silicon and chemicals get into your water. Wind requires coal plants running 24/7 to make up the slack for when conditions aren't ideal, so therefore realease more radiation than nuclear. Geothermal releases chemicals, and someone below me showed how hydro is much more dangerous than nuclear.

We will produce more CO2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon...

as a result of building less nuclear power plants. This will not influence global warming in any significant way.

What gets me is the sheep who *still* believe in the hoax that is "global warming".

It's "climate change".

No, wait...they changed it to "global climate disruption".

Unless they changed it again.

It won't influence either one. It won't affect weather or climate.